[d@DCC] Re: Predergast article - legalities?
don.kelly2 at sympatico.ca
Mon Jan 17 17:23:15 EST 2005
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 01:38:38PM -0800, nashjc at canada.com wrote:
> Like Russell, I am NOT a lawyer. However, to my
> untrained eye, the article appears to libel Richard
> Stallman. Pity the US has such weak libel/slander laws,
I'm not convinced that the statements are actually libellous. He
deliberately OMITS the FACT that Stallman is a creator and respects
the rights of other creators. The author creates an artificial
distinct between Stallman and other creators. He attempts to use this
to force the reader into making the false logical conclusion that this
distinct means that Stallman MUST BE the opposite of a creator.
Stallman DOES advocate a future where we would all have the freedom to
distribute exact copies, this much is true. The author simply fails
to mention that U2 doesn't distribute under copyleft or to describe
the distinction b/w copyleft and copyright.
It's important that we consistently represent ourselves as fellow
creators (rights holders) so that articles like that one can be
revealed as the propaganda that they are.
don.kelly2 [AT] sympatico.CA
ALTERNATE E-MAIL: karfai [AT] gmail.com
More information about the Discuss